Spermiogenesis and DNA Repair: A Possible Etiology of Human Infertility and Genetic Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the possible origin of sperm DNA fragmentation and focuses on the nuclear events associated with spermiogenesis as a potential source of genetic instability and reduced fertilizing potential of the mature male gamete. Recent findings suggest a programmed DNA fragmentation and DNA damage response during the chromatin remodeling steps in spermatids. We also discuss the spermatid DNA repair mechanisms and the possible involvement of condensing proteins, such as transition proteins and protamines, in the process, as this DNA fragmentation is normally not found in late spermatids. We propose that alterations in the chromatin remodeling steps or DNA repair in elongating spermatids may lead to persistent DNA breaks. This vulnerable step of spermiogenesis may provide a clue to the etiology of sperm DNA fragmentation associated with infertility in humans. This vulnerability is further emphasized given the haploid character of spermatids that must resolve programmed double-stranded breaks by an error-prone DNA repair mechanism. Therefore, spermiogenesis has probably been overlooked as an important source of genetic instability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".